We know that people don’t like to pay taxes; that is clear from the political rhetoric of the day. Who can forget the famous words of George H. W. Bush, who said so very clearly: “Read my lips: No new taxes.” It was a promise that he couldn’t keep, but the blowback was so great that today it would seem un-American to suggest that taxes should be raised. Although we like public services, such as roads, schools, police, fire departments, ambulances, libraries, and the like, we’d rather not pay for them. And don’t get me started on those entitlement programs like Medicaid and welfare; though Medicare and Social Security seem sacrosanct in many quarters (remember that senior citizens do vote). Our anti-tax mentality, when accompanied by an inability to figure out exactly where the fat is that can be trimmed, has lead to ever increasing budget deficits.

Questions of taxation would seem to be political issues upon which the faith community would appear to have little to say, which may be why there are so few sermons on the subject. After all, politics doesn’t belong in the pulpit. Still, is it really true that our sacred texts don’t have anything to say about this issue? Is there no word that can be spoken from a faith perspective on this issue, especially at this critical moment in the nation’s history? These are the kinds of questions that are addressed in a splendid but challenging documentary from the people at Ethics Daily, who graciously provided me a copy of Sacred Texts, Social Dutytopreview.

The premise of this documentary is that the sacred texts of the three Abrahamic traditions do offer important guidance on the matter of taxation. It’s not that God has a specific tax policy or method of taxation, but the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do speak of the need for funds to be gathered for the common good. Consider that Moses levied a half shekel tax on the people of Israel for support of the community (Exodus 30:13). Malachi even suggested that failure to pay the tithe should be considered robbing God. As for Jesus, he consistently called for those who had funds to share them with those who did not, and he is famous for saying “Give to Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and give to God that which belongs to God” (Mark 12:13-17); while hanging around with tax collectors. Yes, he called on them to do their job justly, but he didn’t condemn the profession. Paul, of course, called for submission to the authorities, whom God had placed in their positions for the common good (Romans 13:1-7). And, according to the Qur’an, zakat, alms given for the provision of care to the poor is a pillar of Islam. So, the question is: do our sacred texts simply commend charity – that is voluntary giving – or do they encourage or allow for what we would call taxation?

The documentary is divided into four segments – “Social Duty in the States”; “Social Duty in the Sacred Traditions”; “Social Duty in the Square”; and “Social Duty and the Pulpit.” Contributors to the discussion come from all parts of the three Abrahamic traditions, and are drawn from North and South, East and West. All are in agreement that in one form or another; the Scriptures allow for and encourage the gathering of funds for the common good. Indeed, as Presbyterian Tami Sober puts it: “Taxes are what we pay for the common good.”

At the heart of the conversation is a matter of justice. The scriptures of all three traditions are clear – God is concerned about justice. Historian and Baptist Sunday School Teacher Wayne Flynt reminds us that Matthew 25 speaks not just about charity, but about justice. He says in the film that “What we’ve done is sever ethics from social morality and reduce ethics to personal morality. Also what we’ve done is say that justice is about charity.” Rabbi Ben Romer of Virginia reminds us that in the Jewish tradition, government is charged with preserving justice for the entire community, therefore, he says that:

“The American government has the responsibility, as the government of the people, to provide for the needs of the people.And certainly the synagogue and the mosque and the church has a responsibility beyond the government, but not in place of the government.”

If taxes are appropriate way of providing for the common good from a faith perspective, then the next question concerns the kind of taxes that Scripture would deem appropriate. Again, even though no particular tax method is outlined in Scripture, principles of justice would assume that the tax burdens not fall on those least able to pay. That is, tax policy should be progressive not regressive. As all the scriptures of all three traditions put it – those to whom much is given, much is expected. Even Adam Smith agrees with this principle – as pointed out in the documentary, Smith wrote in theWealth of Nations:

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

A progressive tax is one that doesn’t fall heaviest upon those least able to pay – making sales taxes more regressive than income taxes, since often sales taxes fall even on essentials such as food. Lotteries are also regressive forms of taxation, in fact they can be considered, as Baptist pastor David Wheeler puts it, “tax evasion.”

The assumptions that lie behind the film are that most people of faith want to do the right thing, and that the Scriptures of all three traditions call on governments, as well as individuals, to pursue justice and the common good. It would appear that taxes are essential to this process, for services need to be paid for – something that seems lost on so many American today. They decry the deficit, but want their taxes to reduced even as they demand more services. Unfortunately, those who need help the most, too often don’t have the power to speak out for themselves, and thus they end up bearing the burden.

The value of this documentary is that it raises important questions that people of faith need to wrestle with. This film, therefore, is an excellent piece to be used in congregations to start that discussion, and fortunately a discussion guide can be found on the web site. Congregations may want to divide the video curriculum into four parts, making for a month long study, or it could be used in one sitting, but the participants need to be ready to engage for a lengthy period of time. As to why we would want to do this, perhaps Methodist pastor Philip Blackwell makes the best the case:

“If the public system of taxation as well as the delivery of services doesn’t reflect how it is that we are to care for one another, then it is the religious community’s responsibility not only to point that out, but to advocate and to organize in order to make sure that there is a kind of common care for people.”

Some might call this politics, but as the participants in this conversation are apt to point out, it is really a matter of a sacred duty, for God is concerned for justice and the common good. And that, as they say, is preachable! And this DVD an insightful and important contributor to a conversation that needs to be undertaken.

Comments

Political positions are no guarantee of how they respond to the question of homosexuality. Both Communist and Fascist leaders have been anti-homosexual. There are liberals who are homophobic and Conservatives who are welcoming. So, you see there is no guarantee of any position!

And, just to be clear, I'm not a socialist and neither is the current President.

I disagree Cornwall, I think you are a socialist, as is Hussein Obama. Both of you love big government and trust politicians and bureaucrats, and detest the freedoms that are inherant in private property and private enterprise. You have no qualms about taking the property of others, by force of law, in order to achieve what is important to you.

And, you're also a hypocrite. You claim that you are trying to do God's will by enacting your governmental policies of taxation and redistribution, but when conservatives want to outlaw abortion, or limit marriage to a man and a woman, both of which are in accord with God's commandments, your crowd contends that violates the separation of church and state!Well, if it does, then so do your redistributionist plans.

There is no intellectual or spiritual reason for your hatred and prejudice against gays. For what are you trying to compensate? To what in your life are you reacting when you strike out in such a mean-spirited way?

If you are only a troll, you still have my sympathy. I grieve for whatever has wounded you or fractured you or left you feeling incomplete - and causes you to lash out in anger and in hurtful and wasteful ways.

I love you, Gary. Just do not confuse my love for blindness or stupidity. Those of us who lived through the 60s know hatred and prejudice when we see it - whether it be directed toward blacks or gays.

Your personal needs are beyond by capabilities to provide your need for professional help. I am not sure anyone can help until you value love over hate and mutual relationships of equality over prejudice.

Missed you. You sound fully recharged and ready to do verbal violence with any and all who fail to embrace the truth you tell.

Doesn't it get old, and don't you ever entertain doubt? I mean, dont you think that a God who preaches and practices unconditional love must have a very difficult time rejecting everyone who fails to agree with Gary? Accordign to you, the god you describe must spend a lot of time rejecting those who take the notion of unconditional love to be more than words, those self-proclaimed Chrisitans who appear to be more unconditionally loving than the god Gary describes.

Are you sanguine with the circumstance that humans are really more adept at compassion than your god?

When I talk about worshipping a God of unrelenting love and unconditional grace, I am not talking in jest or discussing a hypothetical situation or proposing a philosophical construct to satisfy a primal need.

God is real. God is the ultimate reality. The Good News is that we can have an intimate relationship with God without priests and temples. The Good News is that we can be and of the Kingdom of God here and now. The Good News is that resurrection and transformation is available to all of us without exception and without qualification.

Whether literalist or troll or fictional construct, the person who is Gary or whom Gary represents is a child of God and is loved and cherished by God. I do not know what unmet need or fracture or wound motivates the responses of Gary - and it does not matter. For whatever reason, Gary has not met the God of love and grace - and will not if we respond with hate and vengeance.

If you wish to pursue this, here are two links I offer for your consideration:

How do you square your hostility with this command from 1 Peter 3:15-16 "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence."

Isn't there some way to assert your point and its defenses without going on the attack?

There are times when I am almost convinced that Gary and David are the same person. At times, they seem to have a highly similar style of response:* mean-spirited and insulting* a lack of discussion points and counter-points* an unseemly interest in being controversial and offensive instead of engaging in a dispassionate and reasonable discussion.

Now, now, you are taunting two of my favorite people. I think it's true of both that they have their own styles of discourse, and both empploy and express deep passion about their issues. And I think passion in discourse is as important as a substantial argument.

And Dave's humor, which is not seriously mean spirited, is greatly appreciated by some of us (even though it can sometimes be counter-productive with someone like Gary.

The point I am trying to make is that name-calling and insults and inflammatory rhetoric do nothing to develop a conversation or to move it forward.

So my invitation to you and Gary is: make a positive contribution. If you disagree with someone else's opinion, then offer a counter opinion and reasoning. If you disagree with a paticular theology, then offer what you believe is a better theology.

Someone else making a nasty or angry or insulting comment does not obligate or entitle us to reply in kind.

Having sat this one out thus far to preserve my own mental well being, I would offer these thoughts. The longest comment threads on this blog (and the ones that devolve most quickly) are always those which involve your resident troll. While dissenting opinions are the lifeblood of any good blog, your troll has successfully avoided being banned despite being pathologically aggressive, insulting and off-topic. While his posting history has shown that topics involving homosexuality and muslims will be met with predictable nastiness, he also has proven himself to be quite skilled at hi-jacking almost any topic and turning everyone involved into an unwitting participant in the ensuing chaos (myself included). At this point, it seems that there are a limited number of choices in dealing with him. Either we all make a commitment to not engage him by responding to his provocative attacks and continue the conversation on topic as if he didn't exist or we continue to counter-attack and provide him with what he wanted in the first place, a meaningless conversation in which nobody accomplishes anything other than to get all worked up trying to reason with somebody whose only purpose is to cause unhappiness in others. Unless Gary is banned by Bob, the situation isn't going to change unless we change it.

I appreciate your response. I realize that some of my commenters like engaging with Gary, it doesn't help the overall conversation. So, here is my request. I'd rather not ban Gary, which would require that I delete his comments, I ask you all not to respond to his postings. If you can't abide by this, I'll either have to close comments altogether or selectively delete, as I simply don't wish to have to moderate the conversation -- don't have time.

Popular posts from this blog

Mark 11:1-11 (John 12:12-16) New Revised Standard Version11 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,“Hosan…

John 15:9-17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you servants[a] any longer, because the servant[b] does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. 16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. 17 I am giving you these commands so that you may love one …

I had not heard of the Religious Sovereign Movement that apparently is spreading across the country. It is an attempt to overturn our legal system or at least turn it on its head. As I read this exposition of the movement where all citizens become lawyers (as opposed to priests), interpreting laws as they see fit, I'm led to think of the way we are as a nation as a whole pushing individualism to its extremes. What binds us together I wonder? Anyway, take a look at this essay from the University of Chicago Divinity School and Martin Marty Center offered up by Spencer Dew and his student Jamie Wright.

God's Law: Universal Truth According to Religious Sovereign Citizens

By SPENCER DEW and JAMIE WRIGHT OCT 15, 2015
Credit: Justin Deschamps, aka An Agent for Consciousness Evolution / Stillness in the Storm blog In May of last year, police in Madison County, Tennessee, made a traffic stop of a kind that has been increasingly common in recent years. Officers pulled over a car with …

I am a Disciples of Christ pastor, theologian, community activist, historian, teacher. I'm a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary with a M.Div. and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology. I'm the author of a number of books including
Out of the Office: A Theology of Ministry (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015).